At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

Sure. Abortion involves the termination of a person. Aborting people is wrong, because a person has the right to life regardless of whether they can contribute to society or not. A person has intrinsic value. If both those things are true, then it follows that abortion should be illegal. Of course there are endless arguments over whether or not a fetus is a person, but I would like to point to the narrowing gap between when a fetus is considered alive and the currently accepted age at which a fetus can be aborted as proof that we can never be sure when a fetus becomes a person.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

It is murder. Consider the abortion of a 9 month old fetus. At that point the only difference between an abortion and a C-section would be whether the baby is killed or not. Same goes for an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old really.

On the other side of the coin it takes a pretty strict religious view to think a 2-3 day old zygote is a life.

So where do we draw the line? There isn't a very good answer for that. A valid line of reasoning would be that you must favor erring on the side of caution than elsewhere so we have to take a very strict stance on limiting abortions.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

It is murder. Consider the abortion of a 9 month old fetus. At that point the only difference between an abortion and a C-section would be whether the baby is killed or not. Same goes for an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old really.

On the other side of the coin it takes a pretty strict religious view to think a 2-3 day old zygote is a life.

So where do we draw the line? There isn't a very good answer for that. A valid line of reasoning would be that you must favor erring on the side of caution than elsewhere so we have to take a very strict stance on limiting abortions.

Think. Why do we consider a born child, or later developed child more immoral to kill than a zygote.

I would argue it comes down to level of conciousness, pain, and societal attachment.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

It is murder. Consider the abortion of a 9 month old fetus. At that point the only difference between an abortion and a C-section would be whether the baby is killed or not. Same goes for an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old really.

On the other side of the coin it takes a pretty strict religious view to think a 2-3 day old zygote is a life.

So where do we draw the line? There isn't a very good answer for that. A valid line of reasoning would be that you must favor erring on the side of caution than elsewhere so we have to take a very strict stance on limiting abortions.

Think. Why do we consider a born child, or later developed child more immoral to kill than a zygote.

Which is why I said it takes a pretty strict religious view to not differentiate a 9 month fetus from a zygote.

I would argue it comes down to level of conciousness, pain, and societal attachment.

The problem I have with trying to come up with criteria like consciousness or societal attachment is that no matter how you draw that line you can think of examples that fall below the threshold you have created for life yet obviously killing them is wrong.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

It is murder. Consider the abortion of a 9 month old fetus. At that point the only difference between an abortion and a C-section would be whether the baby is killed or not. Same goes for an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old really.

On the other side of the coin it takes a pretty strict religious view to think a 2-3 day old zygote is a life.

So where do we draw the line? There isn't a very good answer for that. A valid line of reasoning would be that you must favor erring on the side of caution than elsewhere so we have to take a very strict stance on limiting abortions.

Think. Why do we consider a born child, or later developed child more immoral to kill than a zygote.

Which is why I said it takes a pretty strict religious view to not differentiate a 9 month fetus from a zygote.

I would argue it comes down to level of conciousness, pain, and societal attachment.

The problem I have with trying to come up with criteria like consciousness or societal attachment is that no matter how you draw that line you can think of examples that fall below the threshold you have created for life yet obviously killing them is wrong.

At 4/21/2014 11:51:23 PM, bulproof wrote:And why do you get to have a say?

Because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

What is that and what rights does it bestow on you?

Google.com... if you don't have the ability nor the desire to educate yourself I fail to see why that is my problem.

I hadn't noticed that the 1st amendmant gave you any right to interfere in someone elses life, does it?

Ahh, three posts to actually give a legitimate response.

Your original question was what do I get to have a say which pertains to speech and therefore obviously the First Amendment.

So who gives "you" the right to interfere in someone else's life? Well we have to consider who the "you" would be in this case... the federal government. They are the entity that makes and enforces laws (along with the states/local governments but currently abortion is handled at the federal level).

So what gives the federal government the right to interfere in someone else's life? That too would be the Constitution with the most obvious provisions applicable to this case found in the 5th and 14th amendments.

At 4/21/2014 11:51:23 PM, bulproof wrote:And why do you get to have a say?

Because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

What is that and what rights does it bestow on you?

Google.com... if you don't have the ability nor the desire to educate yourself I fail to see why that is my problem.

I hadn't noticed that the 1st amendmant gave you any right to interfere in someone elses life, does it?

Ahh, three posts to actually give a legitimate response.

Your original question was what do I get to have a say which pertains to speech and therefore obviously the First Amendment.

Wrong my original question was

And why do you get to have a say?

Which is in response to you pontificating on limiting abortion, nothing to do with your freedom of speech, but everything to do with your claim to a right over a womans body and reproductive system. Sorry but YOU don't.

So who gives "you" the right to interfere in someone else's life? Well we have to consider who the "you" would be in this case... the federal government. They are the entity that makes and enforces laws (along with the states/local governments but currently abortion is handled at the federal level).

The YOU is very definitely YOU, I wasn't talking to anyone else.<snipped for relevance>

Your original question was what do I get to have a say which pertains to speech and therefore obviously the First Amendment.

Wrong my original question was

And why do you get to have a say?

Which is in response to you pontificating on limiting abortion, nothing to do with your freedom of speech, but everything to do with your claim to a right over a womans body and reproductive system. Sorry but YOU don't.

So what you meant was "And why do you get to force someone to not have an abortion despite the fact that having an abortion is currently legal" and not "And why to you get to have a say?".

Now that we have cleared up what you meant to ask my response is I don't get to force someone to do something despite the fact that it is currently legal. I do get to discuss whether it should be legal and under what circumstances (I get a say). But I don't really understand how you would construe anything I said originally to think that I personally would like to force someone not do something despite it being legal.

So who gives "you" the right to interfere in someone else's life? Well we have to consider who the "you" would be in this case... the federal government. They are the entity that makes and enforces laws (along with the states/local governments but currently abortion is handled at the federal level).

The YOU is very definitely YOU, I wasn't talking to anyone else.<snipped for relevance>

I think it interesting to discuss how we define life and being because that is the central point of abortion. As I stated before it is a very hard thing to do in a way that doesn't have obvious counterpoints (I have never really seen it done). So instead of engaging in that discussion you chose this strange tangent/strawman about what I personally get to force someone to do... none of which is relevant to the discussion, has even been suggested legitimate on my part, and is a bit silly for you to bring up to begin with.

If you would like to add something intelligent to the discussion by all means do...

Your original question was what do I get to have a say which pertains to speech and therefore obviously the First Amendment.

Wrong my original question was

And why do you get to have a say?

Which is in response to you pontificating on limiting abortion, nothing to do with your freedom of speech, but everything to do with your claim to a right over a womans body and reproductive system. Sorry but YOU don't.

So what you meant was "And why do you get to force someone to not have an abortion despite the fact that having an abortion is currently legal" and not "And why to you get to have a say?".

I have no idea where you got that from, certainly not from what I said though.My question was "And why to you get to have a say?" (in what a woman does with her body) No mention of forcing someone to not do what is legal, but having a say in what any woman does with her body.

Now that we have cleared up what you meant to ask my response is I don't get to force someone to do something despite the fact that it is currently legal. I do get to discuss whether it should be legal and under what circumstances (I get a say). But I don't really understand how you would construe anything I said originally to think that I personally would like to force someone not do something despite it being legal.

No you didn't clear it up but hopefully you understand now that I've cleared you up.You think you have a right to determine what a woman can legally do with her own body and quite frankly you don't. It's really that simple.

So who gives "you" the right to interfere in someone else's life? Well we have to consider who the "you" would be in this case... the federal government. They are the entity that makes and enforces laws (along with the states/local governments but currently abortion is handled at the federal level).

The YOU is very definitely YOU, I wasn't talking to anyone else.<snipped for relevance>

I think it interesting to discuss how we define life and being because that is the central point of abortion.

And that is the absolute error in your assessment. The question of abortion is whether or not men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies and they don't.

As I stated before it is a very hard thing to do in a way that doesn't have obvious counterpoints (I have never really seen it done). So instead of engaging in that discussion you chose this strange tangent/strawman about what I personally get to force someone to do... none of which is relevant to the discussion, has even been suggested legitimate on my part, and is a bit silly for you to bring up to begin with.

If you would like to add something intelligent to the discussion by all means do...

I've added quite a bit of intelligence to the discussion but just for fun.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

If you would like to add something intelligent to the discussion by all means do...

I've added quite a bit of intelligence to the discussion but just for fun.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

Your original question was what do I get to have a say which pertains to speech and therefore obviously the First Amendment.

Wrong my original question was

And why do you get to have a say?

Which is in response to you pontificating on limiting abortion, nothing to do with your freedom of speech, but everything to do with your claim to a right over a womans body and reproductive system. Sorry but YOU don't.

Floid says (paraphrasing) "criteria like conciousness can't be used to define a threshold for life." In this context, the question is easily interpreted as "Why do you get to have a say" (about what can be used as criteria for life), rather than (about what a woman does with her body). The phrasing and unstated, implied meaning is needlessly ambiguous -- particularly since in the quoted post Floid isn't saying that women shouldn't be permitted to have abortions (maybe you meant to quote the previous post?)

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

Simple. A fetus is alive, and biologically human. Killing humans is almost always illegal, unless in self-defense. Ergo, abortion should be illegal unless the life of the mother is at risk. At the very least it should be illegal beyond the point where it could survive outside the mother.

And as a note, there is precedent for protecting the unborn. It is illegal to destroy eggs for some endangered species, and you can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

The argument focuses on not does when does "life" begin, but when does it reach the point that it has a "right to life."

Obviously we can agree that a 21 year old person has a right to life, and that a sperm does not. So at some point, the "right to life" is acquired. When is that point and what is the justification for that point?

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

It is murder. Consider the abortion of a 9 month old fetus. At that point the only difference between an abortion and a C-section would be whether the baby is killed or not. Same goes for an 8 month old fetus and a 7 month old really.

On the other side of the coin it takes a pretty strict religious view to think a 2-3 day old zygote is a life.

So where do we draw the line? There isn't a very good answer for that. A valid line of reasoning would be that you must favor erring on the side of caution than elsewhere so we have to take a very strict stance on limiting abortions.

Think. Why do we consider a born child, or later developed child more immoral to kill than a zygote.

I would argue it comes down to level of conciousness, pain, and societal attachment.

Are you suggesting that that your social acceptance should have an impact on if you have the right to life, or merely that it does have an impact?

If you would like to add something intelligent to the discussion by all means do...

I've added quite a bit of intelligence to the discussion but just for fun.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

So the destruction of billions of potential humans is OK, but the destruction of one potential human is wrong?That's an interesting POV.

At 4/20/2014 1:22:20 AM, alexmiller887 wrote:Hey, can all those anti-abortionists give me their best argument against it?

Simple. A fetus is alive, and biologically human.

Would you care to supply evidence of these claims?

Killing humans is almost always illegal, unless in self-defense. Ergo, abortion should be illegal unless the life of the mother is at risk. At the very least it should be illegal beyond the point where it could survive outside the mother.

And as a note, there is precedent for protecting the unborn. It is illegal to destroy eggs for some endangered species, and you can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

So the destruction of billions of potential humans is OK, but the destruction of one potential human is wrong?That's an interesting POV.

Strawman much? Floid's argument against abortion is not that it's destroying a potential human; he specifically states that "it takes a pretty strict religious view to think [that life begins at conception]" (much less before conception), and it's clearly not a view he shares. But he points out that in the third trimester, the fetus can survive outside of the womb so the difference between an abortion and a C-section is whether the baby is born. Floid questions at what point should the fetus be considered a life, after which abortion is wrong. If you want to argue with him, you should provide your arguments against late-term abortions rather than silly tangents about cutting your #### off.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

So the destruction of billions of potential humans is OK, but the destruction of one potential human is wrong?That's an interesting POV.

Strawman much? Floid's argument against abortion is not that it's destroying a potential human; he specifically states that "it takes a pretty strict religious view to think [that life begins at conception]" (much less before conception), and it's clearly not a view he shares. But he points out that in the third trimester, the fetus can survive outside of the womb so the difference between an abortion and a C-section is whether the baby is born. Floid questions at what point should the fetus be considered a life, after which abortion is wrong. If you want to argue with him, you should provide your arguments against late-term abortions rather than silly tangents about cutting your #### off.

He is arguing that someone other than THE woman has a right to determine what she can do with her body. If she wants to have her foot removed she doesn't need the permission of this other, but if she wants a blastocyst removed she needs someones approval, usually a male.Misogyny still rules. The world would be a much better place if we all minded our own business.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

So the destruction of billions of potential humans is OK, but the destruction of one potential human is wrong?That's an interesting POV.

Strawman much? Floid's argument against abortion is not that it's destroying a potential human; he specifically states that "it takes a pretty strict religious view to think [that life begins at conception]" (much less before conception), and it's clearly not a view he shares. But he points out that in the third trimester, the fetus can survive outside of the womb so the difference between an abortion and a C-section is whether the baby is born. Floid questions at what point should the fetus be considered a life, after which abortion is wrong. If you want to argue with him, you should provide your arguments against late-term abortions rather than silly tangents about cutting your #### off.

He is arguing that someone other than THE woman has a right to determine what she can do with her body. If she wants to have her foot removed she doesn't need the permission of this other, but if she wants a blastocyst removed she needs someones approval, usually a male.Misogyny still rules. The world would be a much better place if we all minded our own business.

If I want to have an operation to castrate myself do I need your permission?

No, in fact from trying to watch you develop an argument I would think that might be a good thing.

The difference is you castrating yourself is an act chosen by you for your body. Abortion is different in that there are two bodies and at some point two lives involve and therefore the government has the right at some point to step in and protect life.

So the destruction of billions of potential humans is OK, but the destruction of one potential human is wrong?That's an interesting POV.

Strawman much? Floid's argument against abortion is not that it's destroying a potential human; he specifically states that "it takes a pretty strict religious view to think [that life begins at conception]" (much less before conception), and it's clearly not a view he shares. But he points out that in the third trimester, the fetus can survive outside of the womb so the difference between an abortion and a C-section is whether the baby is born. Floid questions at what point should the fetus be considered a life, after which abortion is wrong. If you want to argue with him, you should provide your arguments against late-term abortions rather than silly tangents about cutting your #### off.

He is arguing that someone other than THE woman has a right to determine what she can do with her body. If she wants to have her foot removed she doesn't need the permission of this other, but if she wants a blastocyst removed she needs someones approval, usually a male.Misogyny still rules. The world would be a much better place if we all minded our own business.

No, he's arguing that at some point it's not just the woman's body.

That is still giving someone else control of that woman's body. It doesn't matter how you cut the cake and I can't say that it's an ideal situation that the woman is the final arbiter but there is no-one else in a better position. So ideal or not, the best compromise for all is for the woman to be the final arbiter.